Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

Options
16667697172219

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,525 ✭✭✭kona


    Jack1985 wrote: »
    Not a chance!

    A emirates or ethihad a340 crashed in Toulouse doing engine runs, cockpit severed off, engines ran for hours because they couldn't turn them off.

    The Boeing 727 that c4 crashed live on tv , it's engines kept running too after the plane broke up.

    So yes they could keep running BUT I don't think you'd be getting back engine monitoring.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,447 ✭✭✭cml387


    It wouldn't be unusual to have twenty operators or junior staff from a company the size of Freescale on one flight. Freescale make processors for hundreds of consumer applications.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,746 ✭✭✭irishmover


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    To be perfectly honest, your company employees would be at more risk by sitting in the same building together!

    A fire, earthquake or crazed maniac entering the building would be more of a risk than commercial flying.

    While these incidents are tragic and dramatic due to the technology involved they are exceedingly rare on developed world commercial carriers.

    I would have more concerns about small corporate jets etc

    I worked for a company which FIFO was the norm. Their policy was a maximum of 4 people on the same flight and no more than two senior staff members on the same flight. I always thought it was funny but planes do crash..


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,501 ✭✭✭Jack1985


    kona wrote: »
    A emirates or ethihad a340 crashed in Toulouse doing engine runs, cockpit severed off, engines ran for hours because they couldn't turn them off.

    The Boeing 727 that c4 crashed live on tv , it's engines kept running too after the plane broke up.

    So yes they could keep running BUT I don't think you'd be getting back engine monitoring.

    Precisely and with all due respect this is a triple 7 with Trent 892 engines they are massive and as was the case in the Asiana crash, they would likely separate and implode


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    irishmover wrote: »
    I worked for a company which FIFO was the norm. Their policy was a maximum of 4 people on the same flight and no more than two senior staff members on the same flight. I always thought it was funny but planes do crash..

    That's really bordering on paranoia by HR people and shows a very serious lack of ability to really assess risk.

    Were you also required to eat different meals for lunch in case of food poisoning? Drive different brands of cars? Never use public transport together of any type?

    Hopefully you've all got different doctors... Dr Harold Shipman style serial killers are as significant a risk !


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,746 ✭✭✭irishmover


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    That's really bordering on paranoia by HR people and shows a very serious lack of ability to really assess risk.

    Were you also required to eat different meals for lunch in case of food poisoning? Drive different brands of cars? Never use public transport together of any type?

    Don't be daft it's quite common in Australia.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,784 ✭✭✭knucklehead6


    irishmover wrote: »
    Don't be daft it's quite common in Australia.


    It's not exactly uncommon anywhere, let alone Australia.

    Our CEO, and the 5 most senior people went across to the US last month. Our parent company insisted they go on 2 separate flights.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    irishmover wrote: »
    Don't be daft it's quite common in Australia.

    It's still pretty ridiculous and a tad paranoid unless you're mostly flying using 1950s aircraft!

    I hope none of your offices are located near Nuclear power stations !

    Also you should never visit Japan or the US/Canadian west coast due to quake risk.

    Different batches of the flu vaccine too.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,657 ✭✭✭brandon_flowers


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    That's really bordering on paranoia by HR people and shows a very serious lack of ability to really assess risk.

    Were you also required to eat different meals for lunch in case of food poisoning? Drive different brands of cars? Never use public transport together of any type?

    Hopefully you've all got different doctors... Dr Harold Shipman style serial killers are as significant a risk !

    Nothing to do with HR. If HR had their way they would put everyone on the cheapest flight.

    It's managements way of avoiding severe damage to the working of our company. We lost senior people not just low down engineers like me on AF447 so companies are perfectly justified in putting 5 people on an AF plane via Paris and 5 with LH via Frankfurt going to the same connecting destination.

    And its not just about crashing, there are strikes, cancellation, delays to factor in. Having 10 people stranded at an airport isn't very efficient.

    But judging by your two previous posts I am wasting my time explaining such things to you.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    The risk is still minuscule though unless you're on old aircraft in a part of the world with weak regulation of aviation safety.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,784 ✭✭✭knucklehead6


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    The risk is still minuscule though unless you're on old aircraft in a part of the world with weak regulation of aviation safety.

    I'm sure the people onboard MH370 thought the same.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Working forward from the theory that 'somebody took' the plane for nefarious purposes and that it landed and 'shut down' the engines normally, you have to ask how did they achieve compliance from the passengers.
    Would a terrorist/criminal not be taking a huge risk that somebody would secretly make contact with the outside world.
    A small number of people could not get all devices off passengers before somebody would figure out what was going on and raise the alarm surely?

    Would it be possible to render the crew/pax unconscious by tampering with the air supply on one of these jets?
    Just wondering/trying to make sense of this out loud.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,746 ✭✭✭irishmover


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    It's still pretty ridiculous and a tad paranoid unless you're mostly flying using 1950s aircraft!

    I hope none of your offices are located near Nuclear power stations !

    Also you should never visit Japan or the US/Canadian west coast due to quake risk.

    Different batches of the flu vaccine too.

    You're a bit nuts.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,501 ✭✭✭Jack1985


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    The risk is still minuscule though unless you're on old aircraft in a part of the world with weak regulation of aviation safety.

    Given that nearly 80% of Cantor Fitzgerald employs were killed on 9/11 it shows the risk when employees are centralised at one location, preceding 9/11 It became fairly standard for employees to travel separately.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    I'm sure the people onboard MH370 thought the same.

    While tragic and awful for all involved, it doesn't really change the safety statistics.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    It's still pretty ridiculous and a tad paranoid unless you're mostly flying using 1950s aircraft!

    It's quite histrionic, but a similar policy was introduced in a US owned company I worked in after 9/11. I think it was something like no more than 2 'critical' staff members on one flight, and no more than 4 'ordinary' staff members on any one flight.
    Unfortunately, I never had reason to travel, so it never affected me!

    Said kind employer, also had a policy wrt the post. They confined the two post men, in a room to open the post, armed with paper face masks, with no fan allowed (in case it of arsenic showing up in an envelope and the fan dispersing it!) Poor f'rs used to have the sweat dripping off them and I doubt a paper face mask would have been much protection for them!

    People got very paranoid post 9/11!


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,784 ✭✭✭knucklehead6


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    While tragic and awful for all involved, it doesn't really change the safety statistics.


    As brandon said above, it's not just about safety.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,746 ✭✭✭irishmover


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    While tragic and awful for all involved, it doesn't really change the safety statistics.

    Unless the statistics equate to zero point zero zero zero there'll be a risk in flying. I fly a lot and I understand the risk but, as you mentioned the chances are very low of something happening. Taking precautionary measures is perfectly reasonable when flight is the backbone of a company.
    Jack1985 wrote: »
    Given that nearly 80% of Cantor Fitzgerald employs were killed on 9/11 it shows the risk when employees are centralised at one location, preceding 9/11 It became fairly standard for employees to travel separately.

    Terrible... 80%? Jesus.. Hadn't heard that one from 9/11.


  • Registered Users Posts: 42 nottherealdeal


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    The risk is still minuscule though unless you're on old aircraft in a part of the world with weak regulation of aviation safety.

    I don't think it's all to do with minimising risk of losing part/all of work force it has also got to do with dealing with delays/ flight cancellations. If 10 people have to be in San Fran for a conference/event, if they are all on same plane that is delayed/cancelled those 10 people are late/cannot attend, whereas if they fly separately chances some will make it to wherever they are meant to be!


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭A Primal Nut



    According to this, the military seen some strange radar blips at the time the airplane was missing, but they didn't bother intercepting it, or checking it out more. Maybe due to a lack of communication between the Air authorities and the military.

    Could be an explanation for all the face-saving that's going on.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,746 ✭✭✭irishmover


    I don't think it's all to do with minimising risk of losing part/all of work force it has also got to do with dealing with delays/ flight cancellations. If 10 people have to be in San Fran for a conference/event, if they are all on same plane that is delayed/cancelled those 10 people are late/cannot attend, whereas if they fly separately chances some will make it to wherever they are meant to be!

    Yeh in my circumstances it was shift change in a Mine. Hadn't really come across my mind that it might be to do with delays etc. I was always only Surveyor on the flights. Never flew with my counterpart in my shift. Makes sense now.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,501 ✭✭✭Jack1985


    irishmover wrote: »
    Unless the statistics equate to zero point zero zero zero there'll be a risk in flying. I fly a lot and I understand the risk but, as you mentioned the chances are very low of something happening. Taking precautionary measures is perfectly reasonable when flight is the backbone of a company.



    Terrible... 80%? Jesus.. Hadn't heard that one from 9/11.

    Yeah terrible alright, they held most of the top floors of the North Tower


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    irishmover wrote: »
    You're a bit nuts.

    No need for personal insults!

    I'm illustrating why the perceived risk is totally out of all proportion with actual risk by citing things that are higher risk yet perceived as totally benign in comparison.

    People's inability to properly calculate risk is how financial disasters happen too. Human nature tends to apply enormous risk loadings to the most unlikely but dramatic scary looking thing : plane crash, terrorism etc

    Then we fail to risk load really high risk things that don't seem as dramatic yet damage, kill etc on huge scales and are relatively common occurrences in comparison.

    The avation industry is actually one of the first that began to take a really comprehensive, systematic and scientific approach to risk minimisation across everything it does.

    If similarly comprehensive risk elimimation systems were in place in areas like medical practice in hospitals, you'd find a lot of lives saved.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,778 ✭✭✭✭ninebeanrows


    Wow more pages of complete tripe on here. This place is as bad as godlikeprductions!


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,784 ✭✭✭knucklehead6


    Again, it's not just about safety


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭A Primal Nut


    Press Conference now. They are saying the reports that engine data was being sent for four hours is false. They have been working with Rolls Royce and Boeing who both say the reports are inaccurate.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,501 ✭✭✭Jack1985


    For the WSJ to get it this wrong is quite unprecedented, await the WSJ response with interest!


  • Registered Users Posts: 29,346 ✭✭✭✭homerjay2005


    presser on now.

    3 search areas and a shed load of planes/boats now involved.
    this getting more and more difficult.

    on the engine data story - "we confirm these reports are inaccurate. RR and Boeing teams are here in KL and these issues have never been raised. the reports are false."

    on faa directive - "plane was fully checked and serviced and compliant".

    on the images - " images were released by mistake, we found nothing".

    so in other words, they have nothing, no idea where it is and they still dont know if the plane turned back.


  • Registered Users Posts: 290 ✭✭666bxg


    Latest press conference by the Malaysian Transport minister - reports of engine running for 4 hours are inaccurate. Boeing and RR working with search team in Malaysia.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,746 ✭✭✭irishmover


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    No need for personal insults!

    I'm illustrating why the perceived risk is totally out of all proportion with actual risk by citing things that are higher risk yet perceived as totally benign in comparison.

    People's inability to properly calculate risk is how financial disasters happen too. Human nature tends to apply enormous risk loadings to the most dramatic scary looking thing : plane crash, terrorism etc

    Then we fail to risk load really high risk things that don't seem as dramatic yet damage, kill etc on huge scales.

    You made a huge number if analogies. Editing posts to add more. I seen it as nothing more than you ridiculing the idea of what companies do.

    In regards risk and flying. What would have less risk?

    Flying all your shift change staff on the same flight every 2 weeks

    Or

    Flying half on one flight and half on another with an arrival time of an hour in difference.

    Punch it into your risk calculator! I can see logic, but logic and statistics don't always match up so please show why flying all of them together would be no different to splitting the shift into two flights.

    Off topic here I know...


Advertisement